On June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Olmstead v. L.C.,
holding that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities may constitute
discrimination based on disability. You can find the opinion at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-536.ZS.html.

Advocates for persons with disabilities are very pleased about the decision, although the
court did set a number of limits on the scope of the integration mandate. In a 6-3 opinion
authored by Justice Ginsburg, the court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's holding that
unjustified isolation of individuals with disabilities is properly regarded as
discrimination based on disability.

The court held that unjustified segregation in institutions is discrimination not only
because it perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that people with disabilities are incapable
or unworthy of participating in community life, but also because confinement in an
institution severely curtails everyday life activities, such as family relations, social
contacts, work, educational advancement and cultural enrichment.Nonetheless, the Supreme
Court held, the states' need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment
of individuals with diverse mental disabilities must be recognized.

The court held that the Eleventh Circuit's remand instruction to consider the cost of
providing the litigants with community based services in light of the state's mental
health budget was unduly restrictive. In evaluating a state's fundamental alteration
defense, courts must consider not only the cost of providing community based care to the
litigants, but also the range of services the state provides to others with mental
disabilities and its obligation to mete out those services in an equitable manner. If the
state shows that immediate relief for the plaintiffs would be inequitable "given the
responsibility the state has undertaken for the care and treatment of a large and diverse
population of persons with mental disabilities," it will have met the fundamental
alteration defense.

Additionally, the court held that if the state demonstrates that it has a
"comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with mental
disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that move[s] at a reasonable
pace not controlled by the State's endeavors to keep its institutions fully
populated" an individual cannot skip to the top of the waiting list by filing a
lawsuit to obtain community services; such a move would not be a reasonable modification.
Finally, the court held that a state may generally rely on the "reasonable
assessments of its own professional" in determining whether an individual meets the
essential eligibility requirements for a community-based program.

When the similar case, Helen L. v. DiDario, was appealed to the
Supreme Court, the court declined to hear it, implying they agreed with the lower courts.
Now the court has chose to review the matter -- most likely because 22 states filed a
brief requesting that the Supreme Court hear the L.C. appeal and overturn
the Court of Appeals' decision. Due to the hard work of activists, most of these states
backed out: Alabama, California, Delaware,
Florida (the original organizer of the campaign), Louisanna, Maryland, Masssachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. Unfortunately, four states joined the brief:
Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Washington. In addition, the City of El
Paso passed a resolution supporting most integrated setting and calling on the Governor
and Attorney General of Texas to get off the brief.

The National
Council on Disability, the independent federal agency that played a lead role in
drafting the legislation ultimately enacted as the ADA and has monitored its
implementation in the ten years since, filed a brief that citws NCD's participation in
development of the law; the brief concludes that the Council "would have protested
vehemently" had there been "even a hint that Title II would not prohibit"
unnecessary institutionalization. "But there was no such hint," it states, and
the Council "was quite comfortable lending its unequivocal support."

Read about ADAPT'sCampaign for
Real Choice and efforts to rally to uphold the ADA and its community integration
mandate.

A brief by 30 national organizations
-- including NARPA -- and seven Georgia groups
examines the history of segregation of and discrimination against people with disabilities
and documents the proven benefits of their inclusion in the community. Those signing the
brief include leading professional associations and disability advocates as well as groups
such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and Catholic Charities U.S.A.
This brief, authored by the law firm of Howrey & Simon and the Bazelon Center, reviews
the history of institutional segregation of people with disabilities and the professional
literature that "overwhelmingly confirms" that those "who are placed in
community settings can develop fuller, more enjoyable lives in ways non-disabled persons
take for granted, but which are essentially impossible to achieve in an
institutionthey attend movies, go shopping, enjoy parks and recreation, and visit
friends." Pointing out that the 11 states supporting Georgia's appeal "do so
even though many of their own state statutes take a contrary position," the brief
examines some specific state policies.